(Vatican Radio) At the conclusion of the Mass to celebrate the anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople addressed Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishops and Faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square...

I think it is. Don't see any problem there and it is good brotherly diplomacy to greet someone in an important anniversary. This is not the kind of document for deeper theological debate, only a card with "Happy birthday, hope you have an awesome year, let's hang some day."

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Despite being a converting Catholic; I am not at all anti-Catholic.I live in a small city that is a big college town is the only reason I have the blessing of an Orthodox Church close by. Before I started converting I was praying for East and West to be One and now I pray to see the day it happens. Remember I am relatively new to the Eastern Church and Don't want to change it.

The Patriarch's words are irenic and full of grace, love and wisdom and without compromise to our Orthodoxy. A special 'Axios' to him for his courage in saying what he said since no doubt the naysayers, haters and anti's will fill the net and their pulpits with their usual stuff in response.

Well Vatican II was terrible, at least he didn't endorse it nor the Roman Church's heretical innovations. I think he should quit trying for reunion with the Roman Church and start worrying about his own jurisdiction. The Roman Church has a really long way to go before it will be reunited with us, and I don't see it happening in a very long time if ever. We need better relations but we need to focus on ourselves and converting others to the faith.

Well Vatican II was terrible, at least he didn't endorse it nor the Roman Church's heretical innovations. I think he should quit trying for reunion with the Roman Church and start worrying about his own jurisdiction. The Roman Church has a really long way to go before it will be reunited with us, and I don't see it happening in a very long time if ever. We need better relations but we need to focus on ourselves and converting others to the faith.

That's very true. And Christian. We must solve the jurisdictional issues, specially having an agreed approach (not necessarily common) on growth in the non-Orthodox world. I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils as well as formal reception of later pan-Orthodox documents.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Well Vatican II was terrible, at least he didn't endorse it nor the Roman Church's heretical innovations. I think he should quit trying for reunion with the Roman Church and start worrying about his own jurisdiction. The Roman Church has a really long way to go before it will be reunited with us, and I don't see it happening in a very long time if ever. We need better relations but we need to focus on ourselves and converting others to the faith.

That's very true. And Christian. We must solve the jurisdictional issues, specially having an agreed approach (not necessarily common) on growth in the non-Orthodox world. I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils as well as formal reception of later pan-Orthodox documents.

I will say though, when I meant his jurisdiction, I meant Turkey and parts of Greece. He has just as much missionary work to do as we do in the Americas.

I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils

What would that change? Besides, 7 is great as a symbolical number.

So are 8, 12 and many other numbers, lol!

We have 7 Ecumenical Councils, and certainly the so-called 8th and 9th are ecumenical and represent the Orthodox faith. They are also universally accepted in our church, but I don't necessarily see the need to call them Ecumenical Councils on the level of the 7.

I think it is necessary because it's true. Plus the acceptance by the Church has always been crowned by a formal acceptance in a Council. Those 2 have been through the first phase, but when will we formalize it with another council?

Another thing that I notice is that this kind of gathering took decades or even centuries to happen and that certainly had to do with the difficulties for travelling at that time. In our days, the Pan-Orthodox Synod could gather officially every ten years. Not all of these synods would have the impact of an Ecumenical Synod but they would be able to tackle things before they become major issues.

I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils

What would that change? Besides, 7 is great as a symbolical number.

So are 8, 12 and many other numbers, lol!

We have 7 Ecumenical Councils, and certainly the so-called 8th and 9th are ecumenical and represent the Orthodox faith. They are also universally accepted in our church, but I don't necessarily see the need to call them Ecumenical Councils on the level of the 7.

Like the

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

I think it is necessary because it's true. Plus the acceptance by the Church has always been crowned by a formal acceptance in a Council. Those 2 have been through the first phase, but when will we formalize it with another council?

Another thing that I notice is that this kind of gathering took decades or even centuries to happen and that certainly had to do with the difficulties for travelling at that time. In our days, the Pan-Orthodox Synod could gather officially every ten years. Not all of these synods would have the impact of an Ecumenical Synod but they would be able to tackle things before they become major issues.

I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils

What would that change? Besides, 7 is great as a symbolical number.

So are 8, 12 and many other numbers, lol!

We have 7 Ecumenical Councils, and certainly the so-called 8th and 9th are ecumenical and represent the Orthodox faith. They are also universally accepted in our church, but I don't necessarily see the need to call them Ecumenical Councils on the level of the 7.

Like the

We've had dozens of universally accepted councils since the 7th was completed. Even the upcoming council won't be called Ecumenical (I think people are wrong in calling it one), even if it is universally accepted.

What makes an Ecumenical Council as the name expresses, is that it represents the whole oecumene. In the time of the councils, it meant the empire. Therefore, the 8th and 9th are ecumenical because they happened while the oecumene - the social world of the empire - still existed. The ones afterwards can properly be called Pan-Orthodox, which does not make them lesser than the Ecumenical ones.

I think it is necessary because it's true. Plus the acceptance by the Church has always been crowned by a formal acceptance in a Council. Those 2 have been through the first phase, but when will we formalize it with another council?

Another thing that I notice is that this kind of gathering took decades or even centuries to happen and that certainly had to do with the difficulties for travelling at that time. In our days, the Pan-Orthodox Synod could gather officially every ten years. Not all of these synods would have the impact of an Ecumenical Synod but they would be able to tackle things before they become major issues.

I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils

What would that change? Besides, 7 is great as a symbolical number.

So are 8, 12 and many other numbers, lol!

We have 7 Ecumenical Councils, and certainly the so-called 8th and 9th are ecumenical and represent the Orthodox faith. They are also universally accepted in our church, but I don't necessarily see the need to call them Ecumenical Councils on the level of the 7.

Like the

We've had dozens of universally accepted councils since the 7th was completed. Even the upcoming council won't be called Ecumenical (I think people are wrong in calling it one), even if it is universally accepted.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Well Vatican II was terrible, at least he didn't endorse it nor the Roman Church's heretical innovations. I think he should quit trying for reunion with the Roman Church and start worrying about his own jurisdiction. The Roman Church has a really long way to go before it will be reunited with us, and I don't see it happening in a very long time if ever. We need better relations but we need to focus on ourselves and converting others to the faith.

How was Vatican II terrible, considering nobody was anathemized by it? (Or is that the problem?)

if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Quote

if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Quote

if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Quote

faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

If I am not mistaken the Orthodox reject all that?

Furthermore, there are pan-Orthodox and/or ecumenical (yours not ours) councils that anathemize all those who profess the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son as from one principle, as we do, as well as all the Papal primacy dogmas above, correct? And I am sure there are other errors of ours that your councils have anathemized as well, purgatory and indulgences and others that I may be ignorant of.

If so, there can be no chance of union unless somebody starts renouncing some errors, no matter how much "friendly dialogue" there is. And we may not have another 1000 years to do so.

Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.

Greetings on the anniversary of Vatican II. Thanks to that Great Council of your Church and its fruits, our parishes are full of people running away from liturgical dancing, Protestant hymns, and heretic homilies based on popularized ideologies from Protestant and Evangelical preachers. Keep up the good work, maybe one day you will come running back to us too.

If so, there can be no chance of union unless somebody starts renouncing some errors, no matter how much "friendly dialogue" there is. And we may not have another 1000 years to do so.

You are correct on all counts.

Anyone who thinks we're on the verge of a reunion is crazy. We're in an era of good feelings (and Christian charity is a good thing to share), but feelings is all the deeper it goes.

I think we do need to let go of the hatred and resentment that resulted from a thousand years of persecution and fighting between ourselves. But reunion is probably at least another 1,000 or 2,000 years away (it would take a lot for the Roman Church to come back).

Why is the Ecumenical Patriarch congratulating the Roman Catholics for Vatican II? It implies that Vatican II is a good thing. It brings great pain to hear a Patriarch congratulating heretical councils... what has the Church come to?

I think we do need to let go of the hatred and resentment that resulted from a thousand years of persecution and fighting between ourselves. But reunion is probably at least another 1,000 or 2,000 years away (it would take a lot for the Roman Church to come back).

Here is the thing, I see a lot of people today attracted to Orthodoxy. A lot of RCs won't consider it because they will have to leave the Catholic Church. Vatican II called for ECs to regain their traditions. If the ECs can become as close to Orthodoxy as possible, it may attract more RCs to become ECs. If there are more ECs who study Orthodox theology and live the Orthodox praxis than there are RCs, the RCs will then relent and admit their mistakes.

An Orthodox priest told me it is impossible for the ECs to be Orthodox because of their communion with Rome. But I thought, can't it also go the other way around? If the ECs can be Orthodox, can't their communion with Rome eventually get Rome back to Orthodoxy?

Vatican II, it will go down in history as one of the great Ecumenical Councils. The problems of the RC Church today is just the birth pangs as the Latins "Easternize" and become more Orthodox. The process has actually begun.

Vatican II can't ever be an Ecumenical Council, maybe only in the Roman Churh.

Sadly the Popes haven't been interested in looking East, they've been more open to dialogue and have attended our services, but they've also done so with many other faiths. The last two Popes haven't been more conservative, but more liberal. You can't recognize the validity of Orthodoy and kiss a Quran at the same time.

Vatican II can't ever be an Ecumenical Council, maybe only in the Roman Churh.

Sadly the Popes haven't been interested in looking East, they've been more open to dialogue and have attended our services, but they've also done so with many other faiths. The last two Popes haven't been more conservative, but more liberal. You can't recognize the validity of Orthodoy and kiss a Quran at the same time.

Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body has introduced Theosis to the Latin audience. Once that teaching propagates the Latins will be one step more Orthodox. It is a long journey, don't expect anything to be resolved during our lifetime. But I believe this is the start of a slow but steady process. The rise of the ECs in the Catholic consciousness will also introduce many of the Orthodox beliefs into mainline Catholics of the West.

Vatican II can't ever be an Ecumenical Council, maybe only in the Roman Churh.

Sadly the Popes haven't been interested in looking East, they've been more open to dialogue and have attended our services, but they've also done so with many other faiths. The last two Popes haven't been more conservative, but more liberal. You can't recognize the validity of Orthodoy and kiss a Quran at the same time.

Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body has introduced Theosis to the Latin audience. Once that teaching propagates the Latins will be one step more Orthodox. It is a long journey, don't expect anything to be resolved during our lifetime. But I believe this is the start of a slow but steady process. The rise of the ECs in the Catholic consciousness will also introduce many of the Orthodox beliefs into mainline Catholics of the West.

I do not see how this brings them any closer to Orthodoxy when at the same time they are even more receptive of heathen and heretical views. Also, how could it ever be possible for the Roman Catholics to ever say that they were wrong about Papal infallability and all of its "fruits"? It will never happen.

Vatican II can't ever be an Ecumenical Council, maybe only in the Roman Churh.

Sadly the Popes haven't been interested in looking East, they've been more open to dialogue and have attended our services, but they've also done so with many other faiths. The last two Popes haven't been more conservative, but more liberal. You can't recognize the validity of Orthodoy and kiss a Quran at the same time.

Exactly, though that just reminds me of when the Ecumenical Patriarch gifted a Koran and called it a the "holy book" of the muslims at the coca-cola fiasco.

Vatican II can't ever be an Ecumenical Council, maybe only in the Roman Churh.

Sadly the Popes haven't been interested in looking East, they've been more open to dialogue and have attended our services, but they've also done so with many other faiths. The last two Popes haven't been more conservative, but more liberal. You can't recognize the validity of Orthodoy and kiss a Quran at the same time.

Exactly, though that just reminds me of when the Ecumenical Patriarch gifted a Koran and called it a the "holy book" of the muslims at the coca-cola fiasco.

At least for us the Patriarch of Constantinople isn't consider a holy vicar of Christ and the ultimate authority. If any Bishop does something outrageous or even, God-forbid, heretical, we can tell him to take his staff, shove it somewhere and have him removed. Those of us not under the EP (nor others) don't have like or even listen to him.

I kissed the man's hand out of respect for his office and being the first among equals, not because I like all of what he does or says.

"Kosher," yes. Certainly it is fitting for the Eastern Orthodox Church to be prominently represented at the 50th Anniversary of the 2nd Vatican Council, a landmark event in Christian history. As the second largest Christian communion, and as a church that shares the common history of having been founded as an earthly institution by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, Orthodox Christianity's "First Among Equals," the "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome; and Ecumenical Patriarch, by the grace of God," rightly accepted the invitation of the Roman Catholic Church to join them in this significant event in their history, an event that initiated their church's opening to maintaining filial relations with other Christian denominations and religions. His All Holiness' comments were appropriate and do not compromise Orthodox theology. He also commended them for their "Year of Faith" initiative. Warm filial relations among the Trinitarian Christian Churches are important especially today, not-with-standing theological differences, in a world which is so victimized by the terror of the people of the Moslem religion.

I think we do need to let go of the hatred and resentment that resulted from a thousand years of persecution and fighting between ourselves. But reunion is probably at least another 1,000 or 2,000 years away (it would take a lot for the Roman Church to come back).

Here is the thing, I see a lot of people today attracted to Orthodoxy. A lot of RCs won't consider it because they will have to leave the Catholic Church. Vatican II called for ECs to regain their traditions. If the ECs can become as close to Orthodoxy as possible, it may attract more RCs to become ECs. If there are more ECs who study Orthodox theology and live the Orthodox praxis than there are RCs, the RCs will then relent and admit their mistakes.

An Orthodox priest told me it is impossible for the ECs to be Orthodox because of their communion with Rome. But I thought, can't it also go the other way around? If the ECs can be Orthodox, can't their communion with Rome eventually get Rome back to Orthodoxy?

Vatican II, it will go down in history as one of the great Ecumenical Councils. The problems of the RC Church today is just the birth pangs as the Latins "Easternize" and become more Orthodox. The process has actually begun.

Perhaps if Rome had actually honored the 'spirit' of the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod and had treated the Eastern Churches in union with her as truly 'sui juris' institutions, self governing and self perpetuaing, in charge of their own discipline (i.e. praxis,including no forced celibacy) your hopes that the EC's might be a path for Rome to follow might have merit. But that didn't happen. I could go on for a long while here on this subject but I am short of time this morning. There is an upcoming conference on the issue of celibacy in the Eastern Churches next month in Rome and I will post on that subject later this month as it should be an interesting convocation.

Greetings on the anniversary of Vatican II. Thanks to that Great Council of your Church and its fruits, our parishes are full of people running away from liturgical dancing, Protestant hymns, and heretic homilies based on popularized ideologies from Protestant and Evangelical preachers. Keep up the good work, maybe one day you will come running back to us too.

Your friend and hopefully Second Among Equals (wink, wink),

Bart

Love it.

Although I'm a little puzzled by the "hopefully Second Among Equals" since that implies the EP is converting, which goes completely against the rest of the letter.

Vatican II can't ever be an Ecumenical Council, maybe only in the Roman Churh.

Sadly the Popes haven't been interested in looking East, they've been more open to dialogue and have attended our services, but they've also done so with many other faiths. The last two Popes haven't been more conservative, but more liberal. You can't recognize the validity of Orthodoy and kiss a Quran at the same time.

I can understand your point about kissing the Quran, but I'm puzzled that you said the last two popes. Did Pope Benedict do something like that too?

Well Vatican II was terrible, at least he didn't endorse it nor the Roman Church's heretical innovations. I think he should quit trying for reunion with the Roman Church and start worrying about his own jurisdiction. The Roman Church has a really long way to go before it will be reunited with us, and I don't see it happening in a very long time if ever. We need better relations but we need to focus on ourselves and converting others to the faith.

That's very true. And Christian. We must solve the jurisdictional issues, specially having an agreed approach (not necessarily common) on growth in the non-Orthodox world. I also would be glad to see the formal acceptance of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils as well as formal reception of later pan-Orthodox documents.

I will say though, when I meant his jurisdiction, I meant Turkey and parts of Greece. He has just as much missionary work to do as we do in the Americas.

It's so flattering that you think we western Christians are as close to Orthodoxy as the Muslims are.

I am only bringing this up for a joke, because I believe Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism should maintain close fraternal relations, and I view the scourge of the Moslem's as the world's worst evil of the day, but Reply No. 28 reminded me of a saying from the Orthodox Christians of Constantinople, prior to the Fall, who opposed the (False) Union of Florence: "Better the fez of the Turk than the Miter of the Pope."